True, but at that point, every website I’ll ever visit and have visited in the past might be a threat, so that doesn’t really matter too much to me.

I’ve got several hits, but none of them have permission to request my location. If I understand the README correctly, that should mean I’m safe, right?

Hardly a surprise, since Windows 10 didn’t need new hardware to run. You could install it on anything.

There are pros to this:

If the person you blocked can’t see your posts, they can intuit that you’ve blocked them. Then, they might try and find you on other social media to harass you even further, or shift targets to someone else.

If they can see your posts, they have no idea they’ve been blocked, similar to Reddit’s shadow bans. This might make them think you’re just annoyed or rarely look at your DMs, making them invest even more time to uselessly try to contact you.

Of course, I can see the other side too, that you don’t want them to know about any (new) posts you’ve made; but it isn’t as one-sided as you seem to think it is.

Because you don’t need to have significant experience or rent a VPS in order to do that, and I can respect that. We don’t need to force FOSS developers to become proficient in everything.

What needs to happen is some kind of tool (ideally FOSS) that lets you spin up an actual forum with the same difficulty to set it up as Discord.

Huh, TIL.

Regarding your edit, that amount wasn’t the cumulated cost of whatever Limewire were distributing, that would be idiotic indeed; rather the RIAA tried to call for a ruling that somehow those guys were causing $150,000 in damages - per instance. Now the article unfortunately doesn’t state how they possibly tried to justify that number, and I can’t be bothered to research that myself. Another thing that would interest me is how the plaintiff expected them to pay with almost every dollar on Earth.

So while I don’t think this had anything to do with “lost sales”, I do agree with the possible fines and damage calculations not being fit for any sort of realistic purpose at all.

Because I didn’t know absurdism, I read the second one differently at first:

[The] nothing matters.

And I immediately had to think of this gem:

“But it doesn’t do anything!” - “No, it does nothing.”

Depending on the stuffing, I might actually rather take the seat, just because it’s got armrests.

That could work too, but for many people, being able to dodge/avoid hits is exclusively the DEX bonus to AC, and they believe it doesn’t have to do anything with hit points.

I’m on two minds about that: On the one hand, it’s true that you’re far better at dodging in lighter (or no) armor. OTOH, I agree with you that experience teaches you to decide where you’re going to get hit if at all. So it might be something like “raise your arm so the strike doesn’t hit your belly”.

I rationalize it as “You took some blows so now you have a better pain tolerance”.

Possible formula: Tax for n-th house = n-th Fibonacci number + 5 * max(0, n - 2). So low numbers like three get penalized by that linear part, and high numbers grow exponentially due to the Fibonacci number.

Sollen das Temperaturen sein? Erinnert mich an diesen Edelstein.

Mein Straßenverkehrsamt tendiert dazu, bei Leuten mit nur einem Namen in ihrem (bspw. indischen) Pass einfach den Namen als Vor- und Nachnamen zu nehmen, sodass bei ihnen dann <Name> <Name> auf dem Führerschein steht… Nur, weil die deutsche Bürokratie nicht mit nur einem Namen klarkommt.

Can you even kill something that’s already dead?

But you just completely ignored everything I said in that comment.

Mathematically, that is precisely how O notation works, only (as I’ve mentioned) we don’t use it like that to get meaningful results. Plus, when looking at time, we can actually use O notation like normal, since computers can indeed calculate something for infinity.

Still, you’re wrong saying that isn’t how it works in general, which is really easy to see if you look at the actual definition of O(g(n)).

Oh, and your computer crashing is a thing that could happen, sure, but that actually isn’t taken into account for runtime analysis, because it only happens with a certain chance. If it would happen after precisely three days every time, then you’d be correct and all algorithms would indeed have an upper bound for time too. However it doesn’t, so we can’t define that upper bound as there will always be calculations breaking it.

It’s very pedantic, but he does have a point. Similar to how you could view memory usage as O(1) regardless of the algorithm used, just because a computer doesn’t have infinite memory, so it’s always got an upper bound on that.

Only that’s not helpful at all when comparing algorithms, so we disregard that quirk and assume we’re working with infinite memory.

That may be true for smaller cities, but in bigger cities it becomes impossible, because there just isn’t enough space to house all the people near areas of interest. Cars don’t factor in there at all. Give me a subway for the major areas, and perhaps a tram or bus system so you don’t need that many subway stations in the residential areas, and you can have car-free city centers.

To be honest, I don’t really like it either, which might surprise you considering my last sentence. I just couldn’t resist making a small pun myself.

Got a laugh from me, but I did mean only the ‘a’, not the ‘ar’. I couldn’t think of any other English word with that sound unfortunately, do you have a better suggestion?

I don’t really like including pedestrians in there. Like sure, you can fit a bunch of people in a small area, but another point you shouldn’t ignore is the throughput over time, and pedestrians are by their nature rather slow. Obviously if you’re looking at shopping in a street lined by shops left and right, then that street becomes tailor-made for pedestrian traffic (and nothing else except perhaps bicycles). But public transport is much better suited for travelling any further distances, and that should be the main focus when deciding to ditch cars.